There will be a vote in Crimea on Sunday on whether to split from the Ukraine and join Russia. It is likely to pass. So there will not be a return to the status quo ante.

The best the United States and Western Europe can hope for would be an outcome in which Crimea is not formally detached from Ukraine, but has a very high degree of autonomy. This autonomy would include not just choices about domestic policies but about some aspects of foreign policy as well.

Ukraine would be a confederal state where at least one of the component parts would control some elements of foreign policy, rather than a federal state where only the central government has authority over international affairs. Crimea would formally remain a part of Ukraine. The scope of the issues that Crimean officials would be able to officially decide on their own  even if their Russian counterparts were looking over their shoulders  would have to be negotiated between Simferopol and Kiev, or at least accepted by Kiev.

The United States and the European Union should not oppose such negotiations, even though they will be hard for Kiev to swallow. The alternative would be the de jure, not just de facto, incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation. Which would demonstrate, yet again, the ineffectuality of American policy.

...

A confederal Ukraine of which Crimea was still de jure a part, is the only off-ramp available for the immediate crisis.

Crimea already adopted a declaration of independence earlier this week. The referendum, by an overwhelming majority, is likely to take it out of Ukraine for good. There is no going to back to the status quo ante that the West - and the current government in Kiev insist upon. Ukraine can either negotiate a looser confederal association with the peninsula - or see it forfeited to Russia. It would be preferable for both Ukraine and Crimea to start their own direction as separate sovereign states in a loose union without being a bone of contention between the West and Russia. Its not the solution either Ukraine or Russia really prefer but it respects their core interests. With deft diplomacy - America can lead to a solution of mutual recognition between both Kiev and Simferopol as sovereign states and treating them as co-equal partners in a confederal union. The arrangement would be guaranteed together with Russia. Its the only realistic alternative to outright annexation by Russia on the table. Forcing the Crimeans back to living under Kiev's rule is not acceptable either to them or to Russia. For better or worse, Kosovo paradoxically enough, is the way to go here.

There will be a vote [including illegal aliens allowed to vote in all US elections by Obama administration] in California on Sunday on whether to split from the USA and join Mexico. It is likely to pass, because there are millions of Spanish-speaking only people there and they naturally like Mexico more than USA.

So there will not be a return to the status quo ante. The best the United States and Mexico can hope for would be an outcome in which California is not formally detached from USA, but has a very high degree of autonomy. This autonomy would include not just choices about domestic policies but about some aspects of foreign policy as well, such as declaring war on the Ukraine.

2
posted on 03/14/2014 9:39:02 PM PDT
by bunkerhill7
("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")

Crimea already adopted a declaration of independence earlier this week. The referendum, by an overwhelming majority,

I really don't comprehend this mode of thinking. The Prime Minister of Crimea was, not too long ago, the member of a fringe party with only three seats in their parliament, and was formerly a member of the Russian mafia who went by the name "Goblin" (and, considering Moscow's involvement with the Russian mob, is also likely an FSB agent). He came into power by marching into parliament accompanied by men wielding grenade launchers and machine guns, and declared a quorum and then, himself, prime minister, with many of the parlaimentry members being counted as "present" and voting in favor, when, later, they say they were never there at all.

Right now the Russians have total control of the local media in Crimea, and are occupying the entire area with armed soldiers and bandits. Why is it that we assume that the popular will of Crimea, which isn't even all ethnic Russiam (Tatars make up about 30 percent, and are anti-communist), will take up with the Russkies? Is every ethnic Russian a slave-born Muscovite first, and a Ukrainian second? I don't believe it, and I consider it stupid to assume this.

You realize you’re defending Nikita Khruschev, right? His word was law and he transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine without the Crimea being given a say in the decision at the time. Before that, it was always part of Russia.

You and the rest of the West are defending the edict of a long-dead Communist dictator. And when Crimea seeks to overturn it in a democratic vote, you reflexively denounce it as “illegal.”

And the circumstances by which the new Crimean government took isn’t all that different from how the new Ukrainian government took office. Yet the West has an oddly selective idea of democracy.

Just wondering since neither the US nor the West have a real stake in Crimea but its of great importance to Russia.

You and the rest of the West are defending the edict of a long-dead Communist dictator.

The stupidity of this statement is that the apparent solution is to, again, manipulate Crimea back into a reborn Soviet Union without the free choice of their will being respected. Though, I do not deny that there are many Crimeans who are Pro-Soviet (not to be confused with Pro-Russian).

Most are pro-Russian. So yes, this is their choice, fully consonant with international law and European values.

They’re deciding their own fate, not Moscow, Kiev, Brussels or Washington.

No one else has the right to make that decision for them. Whatever they decide, I respect their choice on democratic and human rights grounds.

No one is denying Ukrainians the right to decide the fate of their country. But they have no more right to deny that choice to the Crimeans than the British had the right to deny it to Americans in 1776.

After all, self determination is a universal principle, even if its one imperfectly realized in our world.

Theyre deciding their own fate, not Moscow, Kiev, Brussels or Washington.

I bet you also believe that there isn't something like 10,000 Russian soldiers massing in Crimea right now too? And that an invasion of Eastern Ukraine from 3 or 4 directions with an army of 80,000+ soldiers and advanced equipment isn't likely to happen?

After all, self determination is a universal principle, even if its one imperfectly realized in our world.

Are you Russian? Contrary what the average Muscovite has been led to believe by Putin, you cannot have self-determination when you're on the wrong end of a barrel. The Russians must pull back, the Mafioso Prime Minister must be banished, the freedom of the press restored, and proper elections held, before we can claim that there is 'free determination" going on in Crimea.

It was the closest vote in the entire Ukraine, with a bare majority favoring joining Ukraine, but it WAS a majority. Keep in mind also that at this time most of the Tatars that were to return later had not arrived yet, and any legitimate referendum today would include their votes.

Whatever coloring or political description gets attached to this situation the fact of it is that Putin wants/needs all of Ukraine and he will get it. We will draw red lines and make stupid speeches but that won’t change a thing

28
posted on 03/15/2014 5:40:46 AM PDT
by Jimmy Valentine
(DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.